M ALAUDDIN BATCHA Vs. RAHMATHUNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the husband / father challenging the order, dated 13.08.2015 of the Principal Family Court, Coimbatore, rejecting the plea for permanent custody of the ward in G.W.O.P.No.827 of 2013 to the appellant / father.

(2.) The appellant / husband as petitioner filed G.W.O.P, seeking custody of his son Mohammed Ashfaq, aged about 7 years by appointing him as legal guardian. It is averred in the petition that he married the respondent Rahamthunisa on 11.05.2005 as per Muslim religious rites and customs and they were blessed with a male child, Mohammed Ashfaq born on 106.2007. The respondent developed misunderstanding without any reason and deserted the appellant / husband abruptly and left for her parental house in Narasimha Naickenpalayam, Coimbatore with the minor son. The appellant's attempt for joint living was of no use. The ward enters the age of 7 years as on 106.2013 and the appellant / petitioner is having a legal right as a father of his male child. The petitioner has taken insurance in the name of his son and he is also depositing periodical amount in the account of City Union Bank, Coimbatore for the welfare of his son. The respondent deprives the petitioner of his right to have the custody and to look after the studies and welfare of his son.

(3.) The respondent in her counter contends that she was illtreated by the appellant / petitioner and in-laws. The appellant / petitioner used third degree torture, pulled respondent's hair and used to hit her head on the wall. The appellant / petitioner dropped three times the respondent and her son at the parents house of the respondent. The respondent is looking after her son well by getting admission in Camford International School, Coimbatore. She paid yearly school fee of Rs.2 lakhs for the second standard and her parents are also feeding her son in a royal way. The petitioner has no chance of giving better education to the ward like that of the respondent. The appellant / petitioner did not even call the respondent or his son through telephone or mobile phone.